Posts: 14932
Threads: 684
Joined: August 25, 2008
Reputation:
143
RE: Smoking
June 29, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Killing through drink-driving is indirect. My point was that nobody is harmed simply from a person drinking (i.e. the action of tipping the beverage down your throat), whereas people are harmed from second-hand smoke.
I agree with you on the campaigns thing. Promoting the dangers of smoking should be the aim of the campaign, not to smear the people who decide to endanger their lives; that is their liberty.
Posts: 2375
Threads: 186
Joined: August 29, 2008
Reputation:
38
RE: Smoking
June 29, 2009 at 12:49 pm
If you watch Penn & Teller's bullshit, they have an episode on smoking. It's one of their more controversial episodes because they try to make a case that second hand smoking is not that bad. I don't agree with their argument and research has come out since then that effectively disproves their premise, but I do agree with one aspect of their argument. If a privately owned restaurant wants to offer a smoking facility, they should be allowed to do so. Maybe through a similarly regulated alcohol license.
Posts: 628
Threads: 13
Joined: December 1, 2008
Reputation:
13
RE: Smoking
June 29, 2009 at 1:13 pm
I wouldn't mind smokers being 25 feet away from buildings. I'm sick of inhaling it every time I pass the Bingo -_-
Posts: 2375
Threads: 186
Joined: August 29, 2008
Reputation:
38
RE: Smoking
June 29, 2009 at 1:24 pm
I personally prefer smoking outside. I'm saying if a privately owned bar or restaurant had patronage consisting primarily of smokers who collectively want a smoking establishment, they should be allowed to petition for a smoking license and become a smoking establishment. Just as smokers would have to go somewhere else for a smoking establishement, so would non-smokers. That seems relatively fair to me.
Posts: 4807
Threads: 291
Joined: October 29, 2008
Reputation:
35
RE: Smoking
June 29, 2009 at 2:41 pm
This is where I think there was some serious money to be made for restaurant owners when I was like 10 - 12 years old. If a restaurant owner decided to open a restaurant targetting specifically customers who are asthmatic or otherwise allergic to smoke, they would have made a killing, and no one would have felt their rights violated. It is acknowledging that not every can sit in a regular bar or restaurant for truthful reasons giving them a good place to eat and drink, but not threading on the rights of the (back then) majority of smokers.
Best regards,
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
Posts: 284
Threads: 11
Joined: April 6, 2009
Reputation:
4
RE: Smoking
June 29, 2009 at 3:11 pm
(June 29, 2009 at 1:24 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: I personally prefer smoking outside. I'm saying if a privately owned bar or restaurant had patronage consisting primarily of smokers who collectively want a smoking establishment, they should be allowed to petition for a smoking license and become a smoking establishment. Just as smokers would have to go somewhere else for a smoking establishement, so would non-smokers. That seems relatively fair to me.
I fully agree.
Personally, it's not God I dislike, it's his fan club I can't stand.
Posts: 14932
Threads: 684
Joined: August 25, 2008
Reputation:
143
RE: Smoking
June 29, 2009 at 6:43 pm
The only thing that prohibition solves is...wait, scratch that...prohibition solves nothing. It creates the illusion that something has been solved but in reality everything is exactly the same.